Report Overview
“Myself, I always loved going to these meetings because I always found new ideas. Then I’d take them back to Wisconsin, disguise them a little bit, and declare that ‘it’s mine.’” -Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson [From a luncheon speech to ALEC, April 2002, CorporateSponsored Crime Laws, American RadioWorks, April 2002]

When politicians say their state is “open for business,” they usually just mean that it is business-friendly. Unfortunately, many Lansing Republicans mean it literally. They are members of a secretive organization that links right-wing lawmakers and corporate power brokers called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

What is ALEC?
ALEC is a corporate bill mill that is exerting extraordinary and secretive inﬂuence in the Michigan legislature and in other states. Through ALEC, corporations hand Michigan lawmakers wish lists in the form of “model bills” that often directly beneﬁt their bottom line at the expense of Michigan families. Numerous ALEC model bills are crafted behind closed doors by corporations, for corporations. As noted by the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALECexposed.org site, elected ofﬁcials who are members of ALEC bring these model bills back to Michigan as their own ideas and public policy innovations, without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills at closed-door meetings with lawmakers who are ALEC members. ALEC provides lawmakers with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process by secretly outsourcing their role in drafting legislation to wealthy special interests.

ALEC in Michigan
26 current and former lawmakers in Michigan have ties to ALEC - but the number could be much higher. Identifying Michigan lawmakers who are ALEC members is a difﬁcult task because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though it claims to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of members made public by the organization. Michigan lawmakers with ALEC ties include the following individuals (along with the position of leadership they hold in the state legislature):

Sen. David Robertson (R - Grand Blanc) Local Government and Elections Committee Chair

Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker (R - Lawton) Former ALEC State Chairman

Progress Michigan has determined that at least 20 corporation-friendly bills recently introduced in the Michigan legislature echo ALEC model bills. ALEC bills in Michigan include setting limits on liability for one company that poisoned workers with asbestos, making it harder for Michiganders to register to vote, and restricting the First Amendment rights of workers to collectively bargain and organize, as well as purely political resolutions calling on Congress to pass extreme right-wing legislation.

ALEC by the Numbers
12 state Representatives are known ALEC members. 12 state Senators are known ALEC members. 13 known ALEC members are chairs of committees in the Legislature. 2 current members of the Snyder Administration were ALEC members as lawmakers: • Jason Allen, a former state Senator who is the former ALEC State Chairman for Michigan. He is currently the Senior Deputy Director for Veterans Affairs at the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. • Patricia Birkholz, a former state Senator, is currently the director of the Michigan Ofﬁce of the Great Lakes at the Department of Environmental Quality. $7,600 in taxpayer dollars have been spent on ALEC dues for lawmakers since 2005. $2,500 in taxpayer dollars have been spent on ALEC dues for current lawmakers.
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

6

Key Lawmakers Who Are ALEC Members
Rep. Dave Agema (R-74); RNC National Committeeman
Legislative Leadership Positions Majority Caucus Chair ALEC Membership & Leadership Positions Agema was sworn into the legislature in 2007 and was deﬁnitely an ALEC member as of 2008. His full tenure of association with ALEC is not known. [ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/22/12] Sponsored ALEC Model Bill Requiring Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration Agema sponsored HB 5221, which requires both that voters provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and, if satisfactory evidence is not provided, their registration be rejected. The proposed bill has language that is nearly identical to ALEC’s model legislation “Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.” Agema’s bill did not pass. (Introduced 12/13/11)
[HB5221 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/22/12]

Co-Sponsored Legislation Mandating Searchable Database of Budget Expenditures, Similar to ALEC Model In 2011, Agema co-sponsored McMillin’s bill to create a searchable database of state budget expenditures. HB 4136 is similar to ALEC’s “An Act Relating to Creating a Searchable Budget Database for State Spending.” While ALEC wants state spending to be known and searchable, it opposes disclosure of who is spending money to inﬂuence state and federal elections, as noted in its resolution in support of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. [HB 4136 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12] Touted Legislation to Put a Cap on Length of Welfare Beneﬁts Similar to ALEC Legislation Agema put out a press release touting and co-sponsored HB4409-10, which set a 48-month time limit for state welfare recipients. The bills are similar to ALEC’s “Time Limits on TANF Beneﬁts Act,” which does the same thing. [Agema House website, accessed 5/22/12; ALEC Exposed,
accessed 5/21/12; Nesbitt website, accessed 5/21/12]

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

7

Sponsored Legislation Similar to ALEC Model Requiring Police to Verify Immigration Status of People Stopped, Arrested or Detained HB 4305 requires that state law enforcement agencies verify the immigration status of all people over 18 who they stop, arrest or detain. Further, it requires state agencies to verify the immigration status of applicants for state assistance. The bill would require law enforcement agents to transfer undocumented people to the custody of Federal ofﬁcials. The bill language is similar to ALEC’s model “Immigration Law Enforcement Act.” (Introduced 2/22/11) [HB4305 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/22/12] Sponsored Legislation Requiring State Contractors and Employment Agencies to Use EVerify, Similar to ALEC model Agema sponsored HB 4024 and HB 4026 in 2011. These bills, which are very similar to ALEC’s “Fair and Legal Employment Act” require state contractors and employment agencies in the state to verify employees’ immigration status through the Federal e-verify system, despite its error rate. (An earlier version of E-Verify was called “1-800-Big-Brother” by conservatives like Rep. Steve Chabot [R-Ohio] before ALEC adopted these model bills because the process has errors that can result in citizens and documented workers being unable to accept a job from someone who knows them because a faceless bureaucrat in Washington has determined that their name is the same or similar to someone else’s.) Neither bill passed. (Introduced 1/13/11) [HB 4024 text; HB 4026 text; ALEC Exposed website,
accessed 5/22/12]

Introduced 2009 Bill to Repeal the Prevailing Wage, Similar to ALEC Model In 2009, Agema introduced HB 5522 to repeal Michigan’s prevailing wage requirements. The bill did not pass. HB 5522 is similar to ALEC’s model prevailing wage repeal bill. ALEC opposes prevailing wage, living wage, minimum wage, and other such laws that provide protection for workers who have little power to negotiate for wages. [HB 5522 text; ALEC
Exposed website, accessed 5/22/12]

Co-Sponsored Interstate Health Care Bill Similar to ALEC Model Legislation In 2011, Agema co-sponsored Tom McMillin’s HB 4693, which allows the purchase of health care across state lines. The legislation is similar in intent to ALEC’s “Health Care Choice Act for States.” [HB4693 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12] Co-Sponsored a 2007 Right to Work ALEC Copycat Bill In 2007, Agema joined a number of other Michigan legislators in introducing legislation closely modeled after ALEC’s sample legislation to limit the ability of employees of private companies to organize and collectively bargain, including by limiting the ability of the union to represent the workers and protect against free riders. A side-by-side review of HB 4454 and ALEC’s model shows that they are nearly identical:

ALEC
Model
Legislation

SB
607,
HB
4454,
HB
6348
(2007,
2010) Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "right to work law".

Section 1. { Title.} This Act may be cited as the Right to Work Act.

Section 3. {Labor organization.} The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.

(b) "Labor organization" means an organization of any kind, an agency or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

9

Section 4. {Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited.} No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment: (A) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary afﬁliation with, or voluntary ﬁnancial support of a labor organization; (B) to become or remain a member of a labor organization; (C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; (D) to pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or (E) to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.

Sec. 5. Except as provided in section 13, a person shall not require an employee to do any of the following as a condition of employment or continued employment: (a) Become or remain a member of a labor organization. (b) Pay dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges to a labor organization. (c) Pay to a charity or other third party an amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization.

Section 8. {Penalties.} Any person who directly or indirectly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a ﬁne not exceeding (insert amount) or imprisonment for a period of not more than (insert time period), or both such ﬁne and imprisonment.

Sec. 11. A person who violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. The prosecuting attorney of the county or the attorney general shall investigate each complaint of a violation of this act and shall prosecute the criminal case if credible evidence of a violation exists.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

10

Section 9. {Civil remedies.} Any employee harmed as a result of any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to injunctive relief against any and all violators or persons threatening violations and may in addition thereto recover any and all damages, including costs and reasonable attorney fees, of any character resulting from such violation or threatened violation. Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the penalties and remedies prescribed in other provisions of this chapter.

Sec. 9. A person who suffers an injury or a threatened injury from a violation of this act may bring a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or both. The court may award a prevailing plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees. The civil remedy is independent of, and in addition to, any criminal proceeding or sanction prescribed for a violation of this act.

Section 10. {Duty to investigate.} It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorneys of each county (or the attorney general of this state) to investigate complaints of violation or threatened violations of this chapter and to prosecute all persons violating any of its provisions, and to take all means at their command to ensure its effective enforcement.

Sec. 11. A person who violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. The prosecuting attorney of the county or the attorney general shall investigate each complaint of a violation of this act and shall prosecute the criminal case if credible evidence of a violation exists.

Co-Sponsored Legislation to Block Union Organizing of Government-Subsidized Child Care Workers In 2011, Agema co-sponsored legislation which clariﬁed that people who provide services under contracts with the state are not public employees. According to Agema’s own press release on the bill, the intent of the bill was to stop the unionization of child care workers in the state. The bill has not passed. [HB 4003 text; Agema House website, accessed 5/22/12]

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

11

Used Taxpayer Funds to Pay for ALEC Membership & Received ALEC Contributions Michigan House Business Ofﬁce records show that Agema used taxpayer funds to pay for his $50 ALEC membership on 5/13/08. Two weeks later, Agema received a $500 contribution from ALEC Sponsor UPS. [Followthemoney.org; MI House Business Ofﬁce] UPS is not just a sponsor of ALEC, but is a major player. UPS Operations Manger Kevin McArdle is an ALEC Private Enterprise Board Member, which means he sits on ALEC’s corporate governing board. Additionally, UPS has a seat and a vote on ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force’s Executive Committee; and UPS is the State Corporate Co-Chair of California - charged with raising money for ALEC “scholarships” for lawmakers and for getting ALEC bills moved in the state. [ALEC Exposed website, accessed
6/5/12]

Sponsored the Consumer Choice Insurance Act, Similar to ALEC Model In 2011, Lund sponsored the “Consumer Choice Insurance Act” (HB 4936), which would take away the requirement that Michigan drivers purchase no-fault auto insurance with unlimited lifetime medical beneﬁts. Lund’s bill would have given affected Michiganders injured in auto accidents by allowing drivers to meet the state’s insurance requirements through the purchase of cheap insurance unlikely to be sufﬁcient to cover the medical costs from a serious accident. The bill would have allowed a minimum of $250,000 in coverage, which immediate medical bills can easily exceed in a major collision, potentially imposing on state taxpayers the cost of medical care for seriously injured children or adults that would have been covered by insurance under Michigan’s long-standing rule. The legislation is similar in name, at least, to ALEC’s model legislation “Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.” The ALEC model and Lund’s bill are similar in that they both allow automobile insurance customers to choose what level and type of personal liability insurance they want to carry, regardless of the effect of that in imposing costs on taxpayers for uncovered medical expenses, or on hospitals through bankrupt patients, but the bills are not identical in all of their components, just in their intent and primary objective. (Introduced 9/13/11) [ALEC Exposed, accessed 5/19/12; HB4936 text] Sponsored Legislation to Make Public Employee Salaries Public, Similar to ALEC Model In 2009, Lund sponsored legislation [HB4613] that would close a loophole in Michigan’s FOIA law that exempted the state’s executive ofﬁce, lawmakers and judiciary from disclosing the names and salaries of their employees. (Introduced 3/18/09) [The Detroit News,
7/15/10; HB4613 text]
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

13

The bill accomplishes the same thing as ALEC’s model legislation “Public Employee Compensation Reporting Act.” [ALEC Exposed, accessed 5/19/12] Received Campaign Contributions from ALEC Sponsors Two Weeks Prior to Public Employee Salary Bill Introduction Lund received four contributions totaling $400 from ALEC member corporations leading up to the introduction of his public employee salary disclosure bill. Three of the contributions, from AmeriSure, Ford and General Motors, were two weeks prior. One contribution, from Norfolk Southern, was given on the day the bill was introduced. [followthemoney.org] Pushed ALEC-Modeled Voter Suppression Bills Through Committee In 2012, various progressive groups accused Lund of helping to push a set of ALEC voter suppression bills, making it harder to vote, through his committee. [Macomb Daily, 5/27/12;
Progress Michigan]

The bills and their identiﬁable ALEC models are: Require those requesting an absentee ballot in person at their local clerk’s ofﬁce to present a photo ID (HB4108). Similar to parts of the ALEC “Voter ID Act”(Lund’s Committee Received Bill 1/18/11) [HB4108 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/19/12] Mandate that voters at the polls identify themselves in writing as U.S. citizens (HB5221). Similar to ALEC “Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. (Lund’s Committee Received Bill 12/13/11) [HB5221 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/19/12] Ban the practice of paying people on a per-signature basis to register new voters. And establish felony criminal charges for those who engage in pay-per-signature practices, and for political action committees that engage in a 2-year effort to avoid ﬁling their required statement of contributions and donations. Co-Sponsored ALEC Model Legislation Prohibiting Government from Competing With Private Contractors In 2011, Lund co-sponsored "Michigan Government Competition Against Private Enterprise Act" (HB 4453) which would prohibit government agencies from engaging in commercial activity that involves the construction or rehabilitation of public works infrastructure in competition against private enterprise. The legislation is similar to ALEC’s “Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act.” Such legislation forces more tax dollars to be spent on funding private corporations at public expense. [HB4453 text; ALEC exposed website, accessed
5/19/12]

Added Anti-Union Amendment to State Contracting Bill In March 2012, Lund amended HB 5359, which prohibits the state from awarding contracts worth $100,000 or more to companies that had made a contribution of $100 or more to a state elected ofﬁcial in the 12 months preceding the contract. It also would ban contractors from making such contributions during the term of the agreement. Lund’s amendment would also bar contracts for vendors that employ union members if the union or 10 percent of its members made a campaign contribution. Lund claimed that his amendment would only serve to treat unions the same way as corporations. Critics said that Lund’s amendment was unconstitutional and said it would infringe on employees’ rights. Lund’s amendment allowed the bill, along with a larger set of ethics and transparency bills, to proceed to a ﬂoor vote, bypassing the committee process. [Muskegon
Chronicle, 3/24/12] Note: Although this is not a known ALEC bill, it is not inconsistent with ALEC’s hostility toward unions.

Says Ethics and Transparency in Legislators’ Financial Dealings Are Not Voter Concerns Despite being the chair of the House Redistricting and Elections Committee, Lund said in March 2012, “"When I talk to constituents, they talk to me about jobs rather than what kind of assets I have.”
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

16

Lund made this statement on the heels of a study by the Center for Public Integrity that found that Michigan has some of the least transparent campaign, lobbying, ethics and government accountability in the country. [The Detroit News, 3/19/12]

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

17

Rep. Mike Shirkey (R-65)
ALEC Membership & Leadership Positions Shirkey is an ALEC member, but it is not known whether he sits on any committees. [ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/20/12] Worked for ALEC Sponsor General Motors for 13 years According to Shirkey’s campaign website, he worked for GM in various management and engineering roles for 13 years. General Motors is a sponsor of ALEC. [Shirkey website, accessed
5/20/12; ALEC exposed website, accessed 5/20/12]

Sponsored Legislation Prohibiting Public Employers from Deducting Union PAC Contributions In February 2012, Shirkey introduced a bill to prohibit public bodies from deducting Union PAC contributions from employees’ paychecks, although many governmental bodies deduct contributions to third parties from paychecks, as with the Combined Federal Campaign. The bill makes it harder for unions to collect funds that are administratively easier for the government to administer than for the union to do on an ad hoc basis. Shirkey’s bill was signed by the Governor on 2/28/12. (HB 5085, introduced 10/18/11) This bill shares intent with ALEC’s model bill: “Prohibition on Compensation Deductions Act.” [HB5085 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/18/12] Sponsored Legislation Prohibiting Union Dues Deduction Without Annual Consent In 2011, Shirkey sponsored HB 5025, which requires employees to renew their consent for union dues to be deducted from their paychecks each year, rather than to follow the traditional practice of allowing employees to opt out; an opt-in process is intended to impede unions. The bill is similar in effect to ALEC’s “Prohibition of Negative Check-Off Act.” (Introduced 9/28/11) [HB 5025 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12] Co-Sponsored Interstate Health Care Bill Similar to ALEC Model Legislation In 2011, Shirkey co-sponsored Tom McMillin’s HB 4693, which allows the purchase of health care across state lines. The legislation is similar in intent to ALEC’s “Health Care Choice Act for States.” (Introduced 5/31/11) [HB4693 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12]

Leadership Positions with ALEC None known McMillin Attempted to Dodge Questions about Membership in ALEC At a town hall event in Rochester on March 28, 2011, McMillin was asked by a constituent whether he was a member of ALEC. McMillin attempted to dodge the question, but according to the Rochester Citizen, “a call to McMillin’s ofﬁce talking to one of his staff members, conﬁrmed that McMillin does indeed belong to ALEC, which is a dues paying organization and that McMillin had paid for the membership out of personal funds.” [Rochester Citizen, 3/30/11] Video of the exchange can be found here: Rochester Citizen, 3/30/11 Introduced ALEC Model Legislation to Opt Out of the Affordable Care Act In 2011, McMillin introduced “The Michigan Health Care Freedom Act” (HB 4050), which allows Michigan to opt out of the Affordable Care Act. Much of the language of HB 4050 is the same or very similar to ALEC’s “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.” HB 4050 did not pass. (Introduced 1/13/11) [HB4050 bill text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/19/12] Sponsored Legislation Opposing Federal Health Care Reform, Similar to ALEC In 2009, McMillin sponsored HR 148, urging congress not to pass Federal health care reform. The resolution is similar in intent to ALEC’s “Resolution on Federal Health Insurance Reform Legislation.” (Introduced 9/2/09) [HR 148 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12] Introduced ALEC Model Legislation Urging MI to Withdrawal from the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord In 2010, McMillin introduced a House Resolution urging the Governor to withdraw Michigan from the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (HR 277) which is nearly identical to ALEC’s “State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives” model legislation, another piece of ALEC’s agenda to thwart efforts to deal with climate change and to aid climate change denial. HR277 did not pass. (Introduced 5/5/10) [HR277 text; ALEC exposed
website, accessed 5/19/12]
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

20

Sponsored ALEC Model Legislation Prohibiting Government from Competing With Private Contractors In 2011, McMillin sponsored "Michigan Government Competition Against Private Enterprise Act" (HB 4453) which would prohibit government agencies from engaging in commercial activity that involves the construction or rehabilitation of public works infrastructure in competition against private enterprise. The legislation is similar to ALEC’s “Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act.” Such legislation forces more tax dollars to be spent on funding private corporations at public expense. (Introduced 3/16/11) [HB4453 text; ALEC
exposed website, accessed 5/19/12]

Sponsored Interstate Health Care Bill Similar to ALEC Model Legislation In 2011, McMillin sponsored HB 4693, which allows the purchase of health care across state lines. The legislation is similar in intent to ALEC’s “Health Care Choice Act for States.” (Introduced 5/31/11) [HB4693 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 6/5/12] Touted Cyber School Legislation that is Similar to ALEC’s Model In 2012, the legislature passed SB619, a bill that vastly expanded the enrollment of Michigan children in so-called cyber “schools,” which do not have many of the beneﬁts of real schools such as arts, athletics, and leadership programs, as well as the social skills that comes from in-person interactions among peers from different backgrounds. McMillin, as the Chair of the House Education Committee, touted the passage of the bill, saying that it was “putting families ﬁrst and giving parents more quality options for their children's education.” [McMillin press release, accessed 5/20/12] The Cyber School legislation is similar to ALEC’s model legislation called “The Virtual Public Schools Act.” ALEC’s Education Task Force is co-chaired by a virtual school corporation. The legislation was signed by the Governor on May 15. [ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/20/12;
SB619 text]

Co-Sponsored Two Anti-Union Bills McMillin co-sponsored two anti-union bills in 2011-2012. The ﬁrst required annual consent from employees for union dues to be deducted from their paycheck (HB 5025), rather than to follow the traditional practice of allowing employees to opt out; an opt-in process is intended to impede unions. This bill is similar in effect to ALEC’s “Prohibition of Negative Check-Off Act.” [ALEC exposed website, 5/20/12; HB5025 text] The second anti-union bill prohibits picketing that interferes with public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other travel conveyances as well as picketing on a private residence (HB 5024). Although this ALEC bill does not interfere with Americans’
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

21

fundamental First Amendment rights, including the right of assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, it is not inconsistent with ALEC’s general hostility to workers’ rights and unions. [McMillin press release] Sponsored Legislation Requiring Reporting of Public Employee Pay Similar to ALEC Model McMillin has introduced legislation (HB5196) that will require the reporting of public employee salaries and beneﬁts that exceed $100,000. The legislation is similar to ALEC’s “Public Employee Compensation Reporting Act,” but the ALEC model does not have a dollar threshold for reporting, it just requires the reporting of all public employee compensation. (Introduced 12/1/11) [HB5196 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/20/12] Sponsored ALEC Bill Requiring Searchable State Website of Budget Expenditures In 2011, McMillin sponsored HB4136, which would require the State to maintain a searchable website of state budget expenditures. The legislation, which did not pass in 2011, was very similar to ALEC’s “Taxpayer Transparency Act.” While ALEC wants state spending to be known and searchable, it opposes disclosure of who is spending money to inﬂuence state and federal elections, as noted in its resolution in support of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. (Introduced 1/25/11) [HB4135 text; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/20/12] Kevin Cotter sponsored a similar bill this legislative session. [HB 4096] Five Campaign Contributions for $750 from Current and Former ALEC Sponsors and Companies of ALEC “Private Enterprise” Board Members Contributor CSX Transportation AT&T Ford Motor Co General Motors Contributions 3/27/10 - $150 6/3/11 - $150 11/3/08 - $150 10/14/08 - $150 TOTAL
[Source: Followthemoney.org; ALEC Exposed website, accessed 5/20/12]

Contribution Total $300 $150 $150 $150 $750

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

22

Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker (R-20)

Served as State Chairperson for ALEC in Michigan According to the ALEC website, Schuitmaker formerly served as the sole State Chairperson representing Michigan for the organization.
[http://www.alec.org/about-alec/state-chairmen/, accessed 5/18/12]

Schuitmaker Received Thousands from ALEC-Afﬁliated Corporations Common Cause, the nonpartisan watchdog group, posted a complete list of the corporations that were members of the American Legislative Exchange Council updated as of July 2011, based on its research and research from the Center for Media and Democracy. According to the National Institute of Money in State Politics, Tonya Schuitmaker has received thousands of dollars from ALEC member corporations in the past. Contributor American Electric Power Years Amount ALEC Member Corporation American Electric Power Company Inc. (OH) ALEC Task Force Membership Energy, Environment, and Agriculture

*Coca-Cola dropped its membership to ALEC in April 2012: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74872.html
[National Institute on Money in State Politics, accessed 5/18/12; http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765, accessed 5/18/12]

Sponsored a Bill Nearly Identical to ALEC ‘Model’ Bill Language In April 2011, Schuitmaker introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, a resolution to “memorialize Congress to adopt and submit to the states for ratiﬁcation an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide for a means of amending the Constitution through a convention limited to the consideration of a speciﬁc amendment as proposed by at least two-thirds of the states.” An ALEC model bill called 4B2 Resolution Calling for the Congress of the United States to Call a Constitutional Convention Exposed bears a striking resemblance to Schuitmaker’s bill: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Congress of the United States be urged to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the {insert state} Delegation to such Convention, when called, shall propose the following amendment: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n! Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

25

states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed…” [Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, Referred to
Committee on Government Operations, 4/12/11; ALEC Model Bill, ALEC Exposed, accessed 5/18/12]

No Ofﬁcial Expenses Related to ALEC Based on available public records of the state legislature, it does not appear that Tonya Schuitmaker used any ofﬁcial funds to pay for an ALEC membership or to attend conferences related to the group. [Michigan House Business Ofﬁce; Secretary of the Senate] Schuitmaker Did Not Receive Campaign Funds Directly from ALEC According to records maintained by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Schuitmaker has not received any campaign contributions from the American Legislative Exchange Council. [National Institute on Money in State Politics, accessed 5/18/12] Praised ALEC Publication on Group’s Website In November 2011, the ALEC website posted a Schuitmaker quote praising a publication they developed called “Rich States, Poor States” which holds itself out to be an analysis of economic competitiveness. A Citizens for Tax Justice study of the “Rich States, Poor States” report concluded it was “more wish list than analysis.”

Lawmakers Used Taxpayer Funds to Pay ALEC Dues
Michigan Lawmakers Use Taxpayer Funds to Pay for ALEC Memberships According to records obtained from the Michigan House Business Ofﬁce, $6,300 of taxpayer funds have been used to subsidize ALEC membership and meeting registration fees activities for members of the House from 2005 to the present. [Michigan House Business Ofﬁce] Meanwhile, the Michigan Secretary of the Senate reports that $1,300 of taxpayer funds have been spent to subsidize ALEC membership for members of the Senate. [Michigan Secretary of the
Senate]

Source Materials – Senate The following is the original response received from the Michigan Secretary of the Senate detailing all expenditures to ALEC from 2005 to the present:
Since the beginning of 2005 The Michigan Senate has not made any payments to ALEC for travel related expenditures. The only payments the Senate has made to ALEC during that time have been for dues as outlined below. ALEC Dues Processed during 2005 and after: Senator Birkholz, Patricia Kuipers, Wayne Garcia, Valde Gilbert, Judson Brown, Cameron Allen, Jason Patterson, Bruce Kowalll, Mike Hildebrand, Dave Green, Mike District 24 30 22 25 16 37 7 15 29 31 Process Mo/Yr Description Amount of Payment 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 200.00 200.00

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act {Insert state} enacts the Interstate Health Care Compact and enters into the compact with all other states legally joining in the compact in substantially the following form: WHEREAS, The separation of powers, both between the branches of the federal government and between federal and state authority, is essential to the preservation of individual liberty; and WHEREAS, The Constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, and reserves to the states or to the people those powers not granted to the federal government; and WHEREAS, The federal government has enacted many laws that have preempted state laws with respect to health care, and placed increasing strain on state budgets, impairing other responsibilities such as education, infrastructure, and public safety; and WHEREAS, The member states seek to protect individual liberty and personal control over health care decisions, and believe the best method to achieve these ends is by vesting regulatory authority over health care in the states; and WHEREAS, By acting in concert, the member states may express and inspire conﬁdence in the ability of each member state to govern health care effectively; and

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) Sec. 3. The interstate health care compact is enacted into law and entered into with all jurisdictions legally joining in the compact, in the form substantially as follows: Whereas, the separation of powers, both between the branches of the federal government and between federal and state authority, is essential to the preservation of individual liberty; Whereas, the constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, and reserves to the states or to the people those powers not granted to the federal government; Whereas, the federal government has enacted many laws that have preempted state laws with respect to health care, and placed increasing strain on state budgets, impairing other responsibilities such as education, infrastructure, and public safety; Whereas, the member states seek to protect individual liberty and personal control over health care decisions, and believe the best method to achieve these ends is by vesting regulatory authority over health care in the states; Whereas, by acting in concert, the member states may express and inspire conﬁdence in the ability of each member state to govern health care effectively; and

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

33

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act WHEREAS, The member states recognize that consent of Congress may be more easily secured if the member states collectively seek consent through an interstate compact; NOW THEREFORE, The member states hereto resolve, and by the adoption into law under their respective state constitutions of this Health Care Compact, agree, as follows: Section 1. Deﬁnitions. As used in this compact, the following deﬁnitions apply, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. “Commission” means the Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission. B. “Effective date” means the date upon which this compact shall become effective for purposes of the operation of state and federal law in a member state, which shall be the later of: 1. The date upon which this compact shall be adopted under the laws of the member state; and 2. The date upon which this compact receives the consent of Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution, after at least two member states adopt this compact.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) Whereas, the member states recognize that consent of congress may be more easily secured if the member states collectively seek consent through an interstate compact; Now therefore, the member states hereto resolve, and by the adoption into law under their respective state constitutions of this health care compact, agree, as follows: Sec. 1. As used in this compact, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

(a) "Commission" means the interstate advisory health care commission. (b) "Effective date" means the date upon which this compact shall become effective for purposes of the operation of state and federal law in a member state, which shall be the later of: (i) the date upon which this compact shall be adopted under the laws of the member state, and (ii) the date upon which this compact receives the consent of congress pursuant to article I, section 10, of the United States constitution, after at least 2 member states adopt this compact.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

34

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act C. “Health care” means care, services, supplies, or plans related to the health of an individual and includes but is not limited to: 1. Preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition or functional status of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body; and 2. Sale or dispensing of a drug, device, equipment, or other item in accordance with a prescription; and 3. An individual or group plan that provides, or pays the cost of, care, services, or supplies related to the health of an individual, except any care, services, supplies, or plans provided by the United States Department of Defense and United States Department of Veteran Affairs, or provided to Native Americans. D. “Member state” means a state that is signatory to this compact and has adopted it under the laws of that state. E. “Member state base funding level” means a number equal to the total federal spending on health care in the member state during federal ﬁscal year 2010. On or before the effective date, each member state shall determine the member state base funding level for its state, and that number shall be binding upon that member state.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) (c) "Health care" means care, services, supplies, or plans related to the health of an individual and includes but is not limited to: (i) preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition or functional status of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body, and (ii) sale or dispensing of a drug, device, equipment, or other item in accordance with a prescription, and (iii) an individual or group plan that provides, or pays the cost of, care, services, or supplies related to the health of an individual, except any care, services, supplies, or plans provided by the United States department of defense and United States department of veterans affairs, or provided to Native Americans. (d) "Member state" means a state that is signatory to this compact and has adopted it under the laws of that state. (e) "Member state base funding level" means a number equal to the total federal spending on health care in the member state during federal ﬁscal year 2010. On or before the effective date, each member state shall determine the member state base funding level for its state, and that number shall be binding upon that member state. The preliminary estimate of member state base funding level for the state of Michigan is $29,466,000,000.00.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

35

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act F. “Member state current year funding level” means the member state base funding level multiplied by the member state current year population adjustment factor multiplied by the current year inﬂation adjustment factor. G. “Member state current year population adjustment factor” means the average population of the member state in the current year less the average population of the member state in federal ﬁscal year 2010, divided by the average population of the member state in federal ﬁscal year 2010, plus 1. Average population in a member state shall be determined by the United States Census Bureau. H. “Current year inﬂation adjustment factor” means the total gross domestic product deﬂator in the current year divided by the total gross domestic product deﬂator in federal ﬁscal year 2010. Total gross domestic product deﬂator shall be determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the United States Department of Commerce. Section 2. Pledge. The member states shall take joint and separate action to secure the consent of the United States Congress to this compact in order to return the authority to regulate health care to the member states consistent with the goals and principles articulated in this compact. The member states shall improve health care policy within their respective jurisdictions and according to the judgment and discretion of each member state.
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) (f) "Member state current year funding level" means the member state base funding level multiplied by the member state current year population adjustment factor multiplied by the current year inﬂation adjustment factor. (g) "Member state current year population adjustment factor" means the average population of the member state in the current year less the average population of the member state in federal ﬁscal year 2010, divided by the average population of the member state in federal ﬁscal year 2010, plus 1. Average population in a member state shall be determined by the United States census bureau. (h) "Current year inﬂation adjustment factor" means the total gross domestic product deﬂator in the current year divided by the total gross domestic product deﬂator in federal ﬁscal year 2010. Total gross domestic product deﬂator shall be determined by the bureau of economic analysis of the United States department of commerce.

Sec. 2. The member states shall take joint and separate action to secure the consent of the United States congress to this compact in order to return the authority to regulate health care to the member states consistent with the goals and principles articulated in this compact. The member states shall improve health care policy within their respective jurisdictions and according to the judgment and discretion of each member state.
Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

36

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act Section 3. Legislative Power. The legislatures of the member states have the primary responsibility to regulate health care in their respective states. Section 4. State Control. Each member state, within its state, may suspend by legislation the operation of all federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding health care that are inconsistent with the laws and regulations adopted by the member state pursuant to this compact. Federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding health care will remain in effect unless a member state expressly suspends them pursuant to its authority under this compact. For any federal law, rule, regulation, or order that remains in effect in a member state after the effective date, that member state shall be responsible for the associated funding obligations in its state. Section 5. Funding. A. Each federal ﬁscal year, each member state shall have the right to federal monies up to an amount equal to its member state current year funding level for that federal ﬁscal year, funded by Congress as mandatory spending and not subject to annual appropriation, to support the exercise of member state authority under this compact. This funding shall not be conditional on any action of or regulation, policy, law, or rule being adopted by the member state.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) Sec. 3. The legislatures of the member states have the primary responsibility to regulate health care in their respective states. Sec. 4. Each member state, within its state, may suspend by legislation the operation of all federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding health care that are inconsistent with the laws and regulations adopted by the member state pursuant to this compact. Federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding health care will remain in effect unless a member state expressly suspends them pursuant to its authority under this compact. For any federal law, rule, regulation, or order that remains in effect in a member state after the effective date, that member state shall be responsible for the associated funding obligations in its state. Sec. 5. (1) Each federal ﬁscal year, each member state shall have the right to federal money up to an amount equal to its member state current year funding level for that federal ﬁscal year, funded by congress as mandatory spending and not subject to annual appropriation, to support the exercise of member state authority under this compact. This funding shall not be conditional on any action of or regulation, policy, law, or rule being adopted by the member state.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

37

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act B. By the start of each federal ﬁscal year, Congress shall establish an initial member state current year funding level for each member state, based upon reasonable estimates. The ﬁnal member state current year funding level shall be calculated, and funding shall be reconciled by the United States Congress based upon information provided by each member state and audited by the United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce. Section 6. Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission. A. The Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission is established. The commission consists of members appointed by each member state through a process to be determined by each member state. A member state may not appoint more than two members to the commission and may withdraw membership from the commission at any time. Each commission member is entitled to one vote. The commission shall not act unless a majority of the members are present, and no action shall be binding unless approved by a majority of the commission’s total membership. B. The commission may elect from among its membership a chairperson. The commission may adopt and publish bylaws and policies that are not inconsistent with this compact. The commission shall meet at least once a year, and may meet more frequently.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) (2) By the start of each federal ﬁscal year, congress shall establish an initial member state current year funding level for each member state, based upon reasonable estimates. The ﬁnal member state current year funding level shall be calculated, and funding shall be reconciled by the United States congress based upon information provided by each member state and audited by the United States government accountability ofﬁce. Sec. 6. (1) The interstate advisory health care commission is established. The commission consists of members appointed by each member state through a process to be determined by each member state. A member state may not appoint more than 2 members to the commission and may withdraw membership from the commission at any time. Each commission member is entitled to 1 vote. The commission shall not act unless a majority of the members are present, and no action shall be binding unless approved by a majority of the commission's total membership.

(2) The commission may elect from among its membership a chairperson. The commission may adopt and publish bylaws and policies that are not inconsistent with this compact. The commission shall meet at least once a year, and may meet more frequently.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

38

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act C. The commission may study issues of health care regulation that are of particular concern to the member states. The commission may make non-binding recommendations to the member states. The legislatures of the member states may consider these recommendations in determining the appropriate health care policies in their respective states. D. The commission shall collect information and data to assist the member states in their regulation of health care, including assessing the performance of various state health care programs and compiling information on the prices of health care. The commission shall make this information and data available to the legislatures of the member states. Notwithstanding any other provision in this compact, no member state shall disclose to the commission the health information of any individual, nor shall the commission disclose the health information of any individual. E. The commission shall be funded by the member states as agreed to by the member states. The commission shall have the responsibilities and duties as may be conferred upon it by subsequent action of the respective legislatures of the member states in accordance with the terms of this compact. F. The commission shall not take any action within a member state that contravenes any state law of that member state.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) (3) The commission may study issues of health care regulation that are of particular concern to the member states. The commission may make nonbinding recommendations to the member states. The legislatures of the member states may consider these recommendations in determining the appropriate health care policies in their respective states. 4) The commission shall collect information and data to assist the member states in their regulation of health care, including assessing the performance of various state health care programs and compiling information on the prices of health care. The commission shall make this information and data available to the legislatures of the member states. Notwithstanding any other provision in this compact, no member state shall disclose to the commission the health information of any individual, nor shall the commission disclose the health information of any individual. (5) The commission shall be funded by the member states as agreed to by the member states. The commission shall have the responsibilities and duties as may be conferred upon it by subsequent action of the respective legislatures of the member states in accordance with the terms of this compact. (6) The commission shall not take any action within a member state that contravenes any state law of that member state.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

39

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act Section 7. Congressional Consent. This compact shall be effective on its adoption by at least two member states and consent of the United States Congress. This compact shall be effective unless the United States Congress, in consenting to this compact, alters the fundamental purposes of this compact, which are: A. To secure the right of the member states to regulate health care in their respective states pursuant to this compact and to suspend the operation of any conﬂicting federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders within their states; and B. To secure federal funding for member states that choose to invoke their authority under this compact, as prescribed by Section 5 above. Section 8. Amendments. The member states, by unanimous agreement, may amend this compact from time to time without the prior consent or approval of Congress and any amendment shall be effective unless, within one year, the Congress disapproves that amendment. Any state may join this compact after the date on which Congress consents to the compact by adoption into law under its state constitution.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) Sec. 7. This compact shall be effective on its adoption by at least 2 member states and consent of the United States congress. This compact shall be effective unless the United States congress, in consenting to this compact, alters the fundamental purposes of this compact, which are: (a) To secure the right of the member states to regulate health care in their respective states pursuant to this compact and to suspend the operation of any conﬂicting federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders within their states; and (b) To secure federal funding for member states that choose to invoke their authority under this compact, as prescribed by section 5 above.

Sec. 8. The member states, by unanimous agreement, may amend this compact from time to time without the prior consent or approval of congress and any amendment shall be effective unless, within 1 year, the congress disapproves that amendment. Any state may join this compact after the date on which congress consents to the compact by adoption into law under its state constitution.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

40

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act Section 9. Withdrawal; Dissolution. Any member state may withdraw from this compact by adopting a law to that effect, but no such withdrawal shall take effect until six months after the governor of the withdrawing member state has given notice of the withdrawal to the other member states. A withdrawing state shall be liable for any obligations that it may have incurred prior to the date on which its withdrawal becomes effective. This compact shall be dissolved upon the withdrawal of all but one of the member states.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4693
(2011) SB
973
(2012) Sec. 9. Any member state may withdraw from this compact by adopting a law to that effect, but no such withdrawal shall take effect until 6 months after the governor of the withdrawing member state has given notice of the withdrawal to the other member states. A withdrawing state shall be liable for any obligations that it may have incurred prior to the date on which its withdrawal becomes effective. This compact shall be dissolved upon the withdrawal of all but 1 of the member states.

ALEC
Model
Legislation Health
Care
Compact
Act WHEREAS, The separation of powers, both between the branches of the federal government and between federal and state authority, is essential to the preservation of individual liberty; and WHEREAS, The Constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, and reserves to the states or to the people those powers not granted to the federal government; and WHEREAS, The member states seek to protect individual liberty and personal control over health care decisions, and believe the best method to achieve these ends is by vesting regulatory authority over health care in the states; and WHEREAS, By acting in concert, the member states may express and inspire conﬁdence in the ability of each member state to govern health care effectively; and

Michigan
Legislation SR
120
(2012) Whereas, The separation of powers, both between the branches of the federal government and between federal and state authority, is essential to the preservation of individual liberty; and Whereas, The Constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers and reserves to the states or to the people those powers not granted to the federal government; and Whereas, States seeking to protect their citizens' individual liberty and personal control over health care decisions believe the best method to achieve these ends is by vesting regulatory authority over health care in the states through an interstate compact; and Whereas, By acting in concert through an interstate compact, the member states express and inspire conﬁdence in their ability to collectively meet the health care needs of their citizens; and

interpretation of the term ‘trespasser,’ and therefore escape liability in an event of an accident or injury on the property. HB 5385 shares some exact language that deal with “child trespassers” with ALEC’s Trespasser Responsibility Act. The ALEC model was presented and adopted at the 2010 conference in San Diego.

ALEC
Model
Legislation Trespasser
Responsibility
Act

Michigan
Legislation HB
5285
(2012)

Section 1. {Title} Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "trespasser responsibility act". cited as the “Trespasser Responsibility Act”. A possessor may be subject to liability for physical injury or death to a child trespasser [age sixteen or younger] resulting from an artiﬁcial condition on the land if: (a) the possessor knew or had reason to know that children were likely to trespass at the location of the condition; (b) the condition is one the possessor knew or reasonably should known involved an unreasonable risk or death or serious bodily harm to such children; (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the trespasser is a child, the injury is caused by an artiﬁcial condition on the land, and all of the following apply: (a) The possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass at the place where the condition exists. (b) The possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and realizes or should realize that the condition involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to child trespassers. (c) The child trespassers, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it. (d) The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to the child trespassers. (e) The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the child trespassers.

(c) the injured child did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in the condition or coming within the area made dangerous by it; (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child involved; and (e) the possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the injured child.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

43

ASBESTOS LIABILITY LIMITS (2011)
Michigan Legislation: HB 4601 (2011) Sponsors: Joe Haveman - (primary); Lisa Lyons, John Walsh, Pete Lund, Sharon Tyler, Matt Huuki, Kurt Heise, Mike Shirkey, Nancy Jenkins, Tom McMillin, Bob Genetski, Mark Ouimet, Eileen Kowall, Wayne A. Schmidt, Cindy Denby, Judson Gilbert, Bill Rogers 5 ALEC Sponsors Status: Signed into law (4/17/2012) ALEC Model: Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act Similarities/Analysis: Michigan’s HB 4601 strips away the rights of Michiganders who have been exposed to deadly asbestos by limiting the liability of the faulted corporation if the company had merged or consolidated with another corporation. HB 4601 shares exact language with much of ALEC’s Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act model, including provisions that deﬁne an “asbestos claim” and what type of claims are not included in this bill. HB 4601 was included in ALEC’s 2011 legal reform legislative tracking document. One of ALEC’s long-time funders and corporate leaders is Crown, which is responsible for untold amounts of asbestos exposure, and this bill is little more than a corporate giveaway that would beneﬁt Crown and other corporations at the expense of the rights of Michiganders. It also reverses traditional components of corporate and contract law by allowing a corporation to buy the assets of another corporation but not the liabilities, and it allows a corporation to secure its assets from injured Americans by transferring them to another corporation, leaving its liabilities - for the asbestos products that it proﬁted from - so that injured American workers and consumers cannot hold the corporate assets to account.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

44

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
1-A A.) “Asbestos claim” means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemniﬁcation, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including: (1) the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including any claim for: a. personal injury or death; b. mental or emotional injury; c. risk of disease or other injury; or d. the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, to the extent such claims are recognized under state law; (2) any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person; and (3) any claim for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos. Section
1-B B.) “Corporation” means a corporation for proﬁt, including a domestic corporation organized under the laws of this state, or a foreign corporation organized under laws other than the laws of this state. Section
1-C C.) “Successor” means a corporation that assumes or incurs, or has assumed or incurred, successor asbestos-related liabilities.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-1.a (a) “Asbestos claim” means a claim for damages, loss, indemniﬁcation, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including any of the following: (i) A claim based on the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including a claim for any of the following: (A) Personal injury or death. (B) Mental or emotional injury. (C) Risk of disease or other injury. (D) The costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, to the extent those claims are recognized under state law. (ii) A claim made by or on behalf of a person exposed to asbestos, or by or on behalf of a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person. (iii) A claim for damages or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos. Section
3001-1.b (b) “Corporation” means a corporation organized for proﬁt, whether organized under the laws of this state, another state, or a foreign nation. Section
3001-1.c (c) “Successor” means a corporation that assumes or incurs, or has assumed or incurred, a successor asbestos-related liability.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

45

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
1-D D.) “Successor asbestos-related liabilities” means any liabilities, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or to become due, that are related in any way to asbestos claims (as deﬁned by this Act, as well as any claims for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos) and that were assumed or incurred by a corporation as a result of or in connection with a merger or consolidation, or the plan of merger or consolidation related to the merger or consolidation, with or into another corporation or that are related in any way to asbestos claims (including property damage claims) based on the exercise of control or the ownership of stock of the corporation before the merger or consolidation. The term includes liabilities that, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined under Section 4, were or are paid or otherwise discharged, or committed to be paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation, or by a successor of the corporation, or by or on behalf of a transferor, in connection with settlements, judgments, or other discharges in this state or another jurisdiction. Section
1-E E.) "Transferor" means a corporation from which successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were assumed or incurred.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-1.d (d) “Successor asbestos-related liability” means a liability, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or to become due, that is related in any way to an asbestos claim and that was assumed or incurred by a corporation as a result of or in connection with a merger or consolidation or a plan of merger or consolidation with or into another corporation or that is related in any way to an asbestos claim based on the exercise of control or the ownership of stock of the other corporation before the merger or consolidation. Successor asbestos-related liability includes liability that, after a merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets, as determined under subsections (6) to (8), is paid or otherwise discharged, or is committed to be paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation, by a successor of the corporation, or by or on behalf of a transferor, in connection with a settlement, judgment, or other discharge of liability in this state, another state, or a foreign nation.

Section
3001-1.e (e) “Transferor” means a corporation from which a successor asbestos-related liability is assumed or incurred.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

46

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
2-A A.) The limitations in Section 3 of this Title shall apply to: a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation that has had a certiﬁcate of authority to transact business in this state or has done business in this state and that is a successor or which is any of that successor corporation's successors. Section
2-B.1 B.) The limitations in Section 3 of this Title shall not apply to: (1) workers' compensation beneﬁts paid by or on behalf of an employer to an employee under this State’s workers' compensation act or a comparable workers' compensation law of another jurisdiction;

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-2 (2) The limitations in subsection (4) apply to a corporation that became a successor before January 1, 1972 or that is a successor to such a corporation.

Section
3001-3.a (3) The limitations in subsection (4) do not apply to any of the following: (a) A claim for workers’ compensation beneﬁts paid by or on behalf of an employer to an employee under the worker’s disability compensation act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, MCL 418.101 to 418.941, or a comparable workers’ compensation law of another jurisdiction. Section
3001-3.b (b) A claim against a corporation that is not a successor asbestos-related liability.

Section
2-B.2 (2) any claim against a corporation that does not constitute a successor asbestosrelated liability; Section
2-B.4 (4) any obligations under the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.), as amended, or under any collective bargaining agreement.

Section
3001-3.c (c) An obligation under the national labor relations act, 29 USC 151 to 169, or under a collective bargaining agreement.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

47

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
3-A A.) Except as further limited in Subsection (b), the cumulative successor asbestosrelated liabilities of a corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The corporation does not have any responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation. Section
3-B B.) If the transferor had assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related or liabilities in connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, then the fair market value of the total assets of the prior transferor, determined as of the time of such earlier merger or consolidation, shall be substituted for the limitation set forth in Subsection (a) for purposes of determining the limitation of liability of a corporation. Section
4-A A.) A corporation may establish the fair market value of total gross assets for the purpose of the limitations under Section 3 through any method reasonable under the circumstances, including: (1) by reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arm'slength transaction; or (2) in the absence of other readily available information from which fair market value can be determined, by reference to the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet.
P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-4 (4) Except as provided in subsection (5), the cumulative successor asbestos-related liability of a corporation is limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined at the time of the merger or consolidation and adjusted as provided in subsection (9). The corporation does not have any responsibility for successor asbestos-related liability in excess of this limitation. Section
3001-5 (5) If the transferor assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related liability in connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, the limitation of liability of the corporation under subsection (4) is the fair market value of the total assets of the prior transferor, determined at the time of the prior merger or consolidation and adjusted as provided in subsection (9).

Section
3001-6 (6) The fair market value of total gross assets for purposes of subsection (4) may be established by any method reasonable under the circumstances, including by reference to any of the following: (a) The going concern value of the assets. (b) The purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arm’s-length transaction. (c) If there is no other readily available information from which fair market value can be determined, the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-7 (7) In determining the fair market value of total gross assets under subsection (4), total gross assets include both of the following: (a) Intangible assets. (b) The amount of any liability insurance issued to the transferor that provides coverage for successor asbestos-related liabilities, determined, if applicable, under subsection (8)(b).

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

49

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
4-C C.) Total gross assets include the aggregate coverage under any applicable liability insurance that was issued to the transferor whose assets are being valued for purposes of this Section and which insurance has been collected or is collectable to cover successor asbestos-related liabilities (except compensation for liabilities arising from workers' exposure to asbestos solely during the course of their employment by the transferor). A settlement of a dispute concerning such insurance coverage entered into by a transferor or successor with the insurers of the transferor before the enactment of this title shall be determinative of the aggregate coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-8 (8) If the total gross assets include an amount for liability insurance under subsection (7)(b), both of the following apply: (a) The applicability, assignability, terms, conditions, and limits of the insurance are not affected by this section, and this section does not otherwise affect the rights and obligations of a transferor, successor, or insurer under an insurance contract or related agreements, including rights and obligations under settlements reached before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section between a transferor or successor and its insurers resolving liability insurance coverage and the rights of an insurer to seek payment for applicable deductibles, retrospective premiums, or self-insured retentions or to seek contribution from a successor for uninsured or selfinsured periods or periods for which insurance is uncollectible or otherwise unavailable. (b) If there is a settlement of a dispute concerning the insurance coverage between the transferor or successor and its insurers before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, the amount of the settlement is the amount of the liability insurance to be included in the total gross assets.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

50

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
5-A A.) Except as provided in Subsections (b), (c), and (d), the fair market value of total gross assets at the time of a merger or consolidation increases annually at a rate equal to the sum of: (1) the prime rate as listed in the ﬁrst edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year since the merger or consolidation, unless the prime rate is not published in that edition of the Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable determination of the prime rate on the ﬁrst day of the year may be used; or (2) one percent Section
5-B B.) The rate in Subsection (a) is not compounded. Section
5-C C.) The adjustment of fair market value of total gross assets continues as provided under Subsection (a) until the date the adjusted value is ﬁrst exceeded by the cumulative amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of the corporation or a predecessor, or by or on behalf of a transferor, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-9 (9) Subject to subsections (10) to (12), in determining a limit of liability under subsection (4), the fair market value of total gross assets at the time of a merger or consolidation shall be increased for each year since the merger or consolidation by a percentage equal to 1% plus the adjusted prime rate for the 6-month period ending March 31 of that calendar year as determined under section 23 of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.23.

Section
3001-10 (10) An increase under subsection (9) shall not be compounded. Section
3001-11 (11) The adjustment under subsection (9) continues until the date the adjusted value is ﬁrst exceeded by the cumulative amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of the corporation or a predecessor, or by or on behalf of a transferor, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

51

ALEC
Model
Legislation Successor
Asbestos-Related
Liability
Fairness
Act Section
5-D D.) No adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall be applied to any liability insurance otherwise included in the deﬁnition of total gross assets by subsection 4(c). Section
6 The courts in this state shall apply, to the fullest extent permissible under the United States Constitution, this state's substantive law, including the limitation under this chapter, to the issue of successor asbestosrelated liabilities.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4601
(2011) Section
3001-12 (12) The amount of any liability insurance coverage included in the total gross assets under subsection (7)(b) shall not be included in the adjustment under subsection (9). Section
3001-13 (13) A court shall, to the fullest extent permissible, liberally apply the limitation in liability under this section in an action that includes successor asbestos-related liability. A court shall apply procedural provisions of this section retroactively. However, if the application of a provision of this section would unconstitutionally affect a vested right, the provision shall only be applied prospectively. Section
3001-14
and
Section
3001-15 (14) This section applies to an action that includes an asbestos claim to which either of the following applies: (a) The action is ﬁled on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section. (b) The action is pending but trial of the action has not commenced as of the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section. (15) As provided in section 5 of 1846 RS 1, MCL 8.5, this section is severable. This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

Section
7 This Act shall take effect on its date of enactment. The Act applies to all asbestos claims ﬁled on or after the effective date. This Act also applies to any pending asbestos claims in which trial has not commenced as of the effective date.

ALEC
Model
Legislation State
Withdrawal
from
Regional
Climate
Initiatives WHEREAS, the Congressional Budget Ofﬁce warns that the cost of cap-and-trade policies will be borne by consumers and will place a disproportionately high burden on poorer families; WHEREAS, simply reducing carbon emissions in the State of ______ will not have a signiﬁcant impact on international carbon reduction, especially while countries like China, Russia, Mexico, and India emit an ever-increasing amount of carbon into the atmosphere; WHEREAS, a tremendous amount of economic growth would be sacriﬁced for a reduction in carbon emissions that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of CO2;

Michigan
Legislation HR
134
(2011) Whereas, The Congressional Budget Ofﬁce warns that the cost of cap-and-trade policies will be borne by consumers and will place a disproportionately high burden on poorer families; and Whereas, Simply reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the state of Michigan or in the Midwest will not have a signiﬁcant impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, especially while developing countries such as China, Russia, Brazil, and India emit an ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide; and Whereas, A tremendous amount of economic growth and job creation would be sacriﬁced in a regulatory cap-and-trade scheme that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of carbon dioxide; and Whereas, No state or nation has enhanced economic growth or international competitiveness through a cap-and-trade scheme or any other government-mandated carbon dioxide reduction policies; and Whereas, The European cap-and-trade system has been undermined by political favoritism, corporate giveaways, higher costs for consumers, and accounting tricks and has failed to achieve its carbon dioxide reduction targets; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we urge the Governor to expedite Michigan’s withdrawal from the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

WHEREAS, no state or nation has enhanced economic opportunities for its citizens or increased Gross Domestic Product through cap and trade or other carbon reduction policies; and WHEREAS, Europe’s cap and trade system has been undermined by political favoritism, accounting tricks and has failed to achieve the carbon reduction targets,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the legislature of the State of ______ urges the Governor to withdraw [state] from the regional climate initiative.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

54

PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR VOTER REGISTRATION (2011)
Michigan Legislation: HB 5221 (2011) Sponsors: Dave Agema - (primary); Ray Franz, Margaret O'Brien, Pat Somerville, Kurt Heise, Ben Glardon, Paul Opsommer, Kevin Cotter, Rick Olson, Greg MacMaster, Hugh D. Crawford, Sharon Tyler, Amanda Price, Peter MacGregor, Bruce Rendon, Nancy Jenkins, Frank Foster, Gail Haines, Brad Jacobsen, Kurt Damrow, Ed McBroom, Ken Yonker, Thomas Hooker, Kenneth Kurtz, Joe Haveman, Jon Bumstead, Eileen Kowall, Tom McMillin, Matt Huuki, Cindy Denby, Andrea LaFontaine 6 ALEC Sponsors Status: Referred to Committee on Redistricting and Elections (12/13/2011) ALEC Model: Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act Similarities/Analysis: This bill is an attack on basic civil rights of the elderly, students, immigrations, and minorities as it would require Michiganders to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship (via a driver’s license, a birth certiﬁcate, or Department of State-issued identiﬁcation card) in order to register to vote. States that have attempted to implement such rules have created a catch-22 situation for some Americans to be able to continue to vote in that they require a birth certiﬁcate to obtain a photo ID, and a photo ID to obtain a birth certiﬁcate. There are numerous instances of Americans who were born here and have been voting for years, such as Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old Chattanooga resident who had only missed one election since becoming eligible to vote, whose right to vote has been adversely affected by similar legislation. [ThinkProgress, accessed 7/20/12] HB 5221 shares exact language with ALEC’s “Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act,” including provisions that details the appropriate forms of identiﬁcation, who must show identiﬁcation based on previous registration status, and how long a locality must hold a person’s citizenship information.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

55

ALEC
Model
Legislation Taxpayer
and
Citizen
Protection
Act Section
4-F.1 The number of the applicant's driver License or non-operating identiﬁcation license issued after October 1, 1996 by the Department of Transportation or the equivalent Governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant's driver license or nonoperating identiﬁcation license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship. Section
4-F.2 A legible photocopy of the applicant's birth certiﬁcate that veriﬁes citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.

Michigan
Legislation HB
5221
(2011) Section
496A-2.A The Applicant’s driver license number or personal identiﬁcation card number issues by the Department of State or the equivalent department of another state if that department indicates on the applicant’s driver license or person identiﬁcation card that the person has provided satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.

Section
496A-2.B A legible photocopy of the applicant’s birth certiﬁcate that veriﬁes United States citizenship to the satisfaction of the person processing the voter registration application. Section
496A-2.D A legible photocopy of the pertinent pages of the applicant’s United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant’s passport number.

Section
4-F.3 A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant's united states passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's united states passport. Section
4-F.4 A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's United States naturalization documents or the number of the certiﬁcate of naturalization. If only the number of the certiﬁcate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certiﬁcate of naturalization is veriﬁed with the United States immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.

Section
496A-2.E The applicant’s United States Naturalization Documents or the number of the certiﬁcation of naturalization. If only the number of the certiﬁcate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls and qualiﬁed voter ﬁle until the person processing the application veriﬁes the number of the certiﬁcate of naturalization with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

56

ALEC
Model
Legislation Taxpayer
and
Citizen
Protection
Act Section
4-F.5 Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.

Michigan
Legislation HB
5221
(2011) Section
496A-2.F Other documents or methods of proof that are used to establish United States citizenship pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99603, 100 Stat. 3359. Section
496A-2.G The applicant’s Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number. Section
496A-3 For the purposes of this section, proof of voter registration from another state is not satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.

Section
4-F.6 The applicant's bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number. Section
4-H For the purposes of this section, proof of voter registration from another state or county is not satisfactory evidence of citizenship. (I) A person who modiﬁes voter registration records with a new residence ballot shall not be required to submit evidence of citizenship. After citizenship has been demonstrated to the county recorder, the person is not required to resubmit satisfactory evidence of citizenship in that county Section
4-G Notwithstanding subsection f of this section, any person who is registered in this State on the effective date of this amendment to this section is deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship and shall not be required to resubmit evidence of citizenship unless the person is changing voter registration from one county to another

Section
496A-4 Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person who is registered in this State on the effective date of this amendatory act that added this section shall not be required to submit evidence of United States citizenship unless the person moves his or her residence to another city, township, or village.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

57

ALEC
Model
Legislation Taxpayer
and
Citizen
Protection
Act Section
4-I After a person has submitted satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the county recorder shall indicate this information in the person's permanent voter ﬁle. After two years, the county recorder may destroy all documents that were submitted as evidence of citizenship.

Michigan
Legislation HB
5221
(2011) Section
496A-5 After a person submits satisfactory evidence of citizenship, the city, township, or village clerk shall add this information to the qualiﬁed voter ﬁle. The city, township, or village clerk may destroy all documents submitted as evidence of United States citizenship not less than 2 years after the date of submission.

ALEC
Model
Legislation Immigration
Law
Enforcement
Act Section
2-A All ofﬁcials, agencies and personnel of this state and counties, cities and towns of this state shall fully comply with and, to the full extent permitted by law, assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws of the United States. For every arrest made by such ofﬁcials, agencies and personnel, the citizenship of the person shall be determined. If the person who is arrested is an alien, the person's immigration status shall be veriﬁed with the federal government pursuant to United States Code: Title 8 section 1373(c). If the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States and this state or a local governmental entity elects not to prosecute the person for a violation of state or local law, the person shall be transferred to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4305
(2011) Section
4.2 (2) When a law enforcement ofﬁcer has lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested, for a violation of a law of this state or any political subdivision of this state, a person who is or should reasonably be suspected of being unlawfully present in the United States, a complete, full, and appropriate attempt shall be made to verify the person's immigration status with the federal government. The person's immigration status shall be veriﬁed through a query to the appropriate entity of the federal government under 8 USC 1373(c). For the purposes of this subsection, a person is presumed not to be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement ofﬁcer or agency any of the following: (a) A valid Michigan operator's or chauffeur's license. (b) A valid Michigan state personal identiﬁcation card. (c) Any other valid United States, state, or local government issued identiﬁcation document if the issuing agency requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

59

ALEC
Model
Legislation Immigration
Law
Enforcement
Act Section
2-A If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is acquitted of any violation of state or local law, is discharged from imprisonment or pays any ﬁne imposed, the alien shall immediately be transferred to the custody of United States immigration and customs enforcement. If the unauthorized alien is convicted of a crime, the alien must complete the full sentence before being released to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection. Section
3-B A peace ofﬁcer shall not stop or arrest a person for a violation of this section unless the peace ofﬁcer has reasonable belief that the person has committed or is committing a violation of this section.

Michigan
Legislation HB
4305
(2011) Section
4.3 If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state law or local ordinance upon discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any ﬁne that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.

Section
4.5 A law enforcement ofﬁcer, with or without a warrant, may arrest a person if the ofﬁcer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

exposing costly tax exemptions and credits, which often beneﬁt large corporations. ALEC also opposes disclosure of who is spending money to inﬂuence state and federal elections, as noted in its resolution in support of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. ALEC
Model
Legislation An
Act
Relating
to
Creating
a
Searchable
Budget
Database
for
State
Spending Section
1 Search and aggregate information for the following: 1. the name and principal location or residence of the entity/and or recipients of funds, 2. the amount of funds expended, 3. the funding or expending agency, 4. the funding source of the revenue expended, 5. the budget program/activity of the expenditure, 6. a descriptive purpose for the funding action or expenditure, 7. the expected performance outcome for the funding action or expenditure, 8. the past performance outcomes achieved for the funding action or expenditure, 9. any state audit or report relating to the entity or recipient of funds or the budget program/activity or agency, 10. and any other relevant information speciﬁed by the [state budget ofﬁce]. Michigan
Legislation HB
4136
(2011)

Section
447-1 The Department shall issue directives requiring all state agencies to provide the department with the following information regarding the expenditure of state funds: (A) The name and principle location of the entity receiving the money (B) The amount of state funds (C) The type of the transaction (D) The funding state agency (E) The budget source of the funds (F) A descriptive purpose of the funding action or expenditure (G) Any other information required by the department.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

61

REPEALING FEDERAL LAWS (2011)
Michigan Legislation: SCR 14 (2011) Sponsors: Tonya Schuitmaker - (primary); Darwin Booher, Jack Brandenburg, Rick Jones, Michael Kowall, John Proos 4 ALEC Sponsors Status: Referred to Committee on Government Operations (4/12/2011) ALEC Model: Resolution Calling for the Congress of the United States to Call a Constitutional Convention Pursuant to Article V of the United States Madison Amendment Similarities/Analysis: Michigan’s SCR 14 is a dangerous attack on traditional American federalism as it calls on the U.S. Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow for the repeal of any federal law by the vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Such a convention would potentially allow states that are dominated by energy corporations to use this procedure to repeal longstanding national laws to protect Americans’ clean water and air through environmental regulations. Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, Sen. Darwin Booher, Sen. Rick Jones, and Sen. Mike Kowall – all legislators with ALEC ties – take the language straight out of ALEC’s “Madison Amendment” model.

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

62

ALEC
Model
Legislation Resolution
Calling
for
the
Congress
of
the
United
States
to
Call
a
Constitutional
Convention
Pursuant
to
Article
V
of
the
United
States Madison
Amendment

Michigan
Legislation SCR
14
(2011)

From
ALEC’s
“Madison
Amendment” Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as art of the Constitution when ratiﬁed by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years after the date of its submission for ratiﬁcation: Article – the Congress, on application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, which all contain an identical amendment, shall call a convention solely to decide whether to propose that speciﬁc amendment to the states, which, if proposed shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratiﬁed pursuant to Article V.

Whereas, A proposal that is drawing increasing attention across the country is the so-called Madison Amendment to establish another means, initiated by the states, to amend the federal Constitution. The Madison Amendment, which was considered by the 111th Congress as H. J. Res 95, reads as follows: "The Congress, on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, which all contain an identical Amendment, shall call a Convention solely to decide whether to propose that speciﬁc Amendment to the States, which, if proposed shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratiﬁed pursuant to Article V."

P r o g r e s s M i c h i g a n!

Who’s writing Michigan’s laws?

63

Legislation Similar to ALEC Models
DUES DEDUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKERS (2012)
Michigan Legislation: SB 938 (2012) Sponsors: Patrick Colbeck - (primary); Arlan Meekhof, James Marleau, Tonya Schuitmaker 1 ALEC Sponsors Status: In Committee (2/14/2012) ALEC Model: Prohibition on Compensation Deductions Act Similarities/Analysis: Michigan’s SB 938 is an attack on workers as it would make it more difﬁcult for unions to collect dues. The bill would amend existing Michigan law that would prohibit public employers from deducting or collecting dues. The general intent of SB 938 is similar to ALEC’s “Prohibition on Compensation Deductions Act,” which also prohibits public employers from deducting union dues for public workers. Not surprisingly, the bill was co-sponsored by ALEC’s former Michigan Chairman, Senator Tonya Schuitmaker.

SR 115 Status: Reported favorably without amendment (2/22/2012) ALEC Model: The Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution Similarities/Analysis: SCR 26 and SR 115 both call on the U.S. Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. constitution. This amendment is often criticized as it would limit the government’s ability to respond to emergencies and eliminate ﬂexibility in hard times. ALEC’s “Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution” also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment. Both of Michigan’s resolutions were pushed largely by ALEC member Goeff Hansen in order to cut government spending, yet Hansen had no problem using taxpayer money to pay ALEC membership dues four times between 2005 and 2009.

Voluntary Contributions Act Similarities/Analysis: Michigan’s HB 5085 is a push to limit workers’ voice in elections and government by prohibiting public bodies from deducting political contributions from employees’ paychecks. While it shares commonalities with several ALEC models, this bill seems to be based on ALEC’s “Prohibition on Compensation Deductions Act” and was introduced by Rep. Mike Shirkey (R-65), an active ALEC member.

AUTO INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS (2011)
Michigan Legislation: HB 4936 (2011) Sponsors: Pete Lund 1 ALEC Sponsor Status: Referred to second reading (10/13/2011) ALEC Model: Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act Similarities/Analysis: The Consumer Choice Insurance Act (HB 4936) would put thousands of Michiganders at risk as the bill would have allowed drivers to meet the state’s insurance requirements through the purchase of cheap insurance unlikely to be sufﬁcient to cover the medical costs from a serious accident. The bill would have allowed a minimum of $250,000 in coverage, which immediate medical bills can easily exceed in a major collision, potentially imposing on state taxpayers the cost of medical care for seriously injured children or adults that would have been covered by insurance under Michigan’s longstanding rule. The legislation is similar in name, at least, to ALEC’s model legislation “Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.” The ALEC model and Lund’s bill are similar in that they both allow automobile insurance customers to choose what level and type of personal liability insurance they want to carry, regardless of the effect of that in imposing costs on taxpayers for uncovered medical expenses, or on hospitals through bankrupt patients, but the bills are not identical in all of their components, just in their intent and primary objective. The bill’s primary and only sponsor, Rep. Peter Lund (R-36) is a member of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurances, and Economic Development Task Force, the same task force that adopted the “Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act” as an ALEC model.

DUES DEDUCTION/WRITTEN CONSENT (2011)
Michigan Legislation: HB 5025 (2011) Sponsors: Earl Poleski - (primary); Deb Shaughnessy, Mike Shirkey, Tom McMillin, Dave Agema, Lisa Lyons, Eileen Kowall, Amanda Price, Gail Haines Status: Referred to second reading (1/31/2012) 6 ALEC Sponsors ALEC Model: Paycheck Protection Act Prohibition of Negative Check-Off Act Simiarlities/Analysis: This bill attempts to limit workers’ ability to organize as it makes it more difﬁcult for unions to collect dues by requiring annual written consent of a worker for an employer to take union dues out of a paycheck, rather than to follow the traditional practice of allowing employees to opt out; an opt-in process is intended to impede unions. This type of proposal has long been pushed by ALEC in models like the “Paycheck Protection Act” and the “Prohibition of Negative Check-Off Act,” which were adopted by ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force. Among the bill’s six ALEC co-sponsors is Rep. Gail Haines (R-43), who sits on the ALEC task force that has adopted these types of anti-worker measures.

ALEC Model: Right To Work Act Similarities/Analysis: SB 116, SB 120, and HB 4054 are an attack on working families across the state as this bill takes away workers’ ability to negotiate fair contracts. Because of this, a study by the Economic Policy Institute shows wages are 3.2 percent ($1,500) lower in so-called “right to work” states than in free bargaining states These bills would create “Right to Work” zones, while ALEC’s bill is a comprehensive Right to Work bill. Although, a near exact copy of ALEC’s Right to Work Act was introduced in the Michigan legislature in 2007 as HB 4454.

Status: Placed on order of resolutions (2/22/2012) ALEC Model: The Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution Similarities/Analysis: HCR 6 calls on the U.S. Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. constitution. This amendment is often criticized as it would limit the government’s ability to response to emergencies and eliminate ﬂexibility in hard times. ALEC’s “Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution” also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment.

PRIVATIZING GOVERNMENT SERVICES (2011)
Michigan Legislation: HB 4453 (2011) HB 4453 Sponsors: Tom McMillin - (primary), Pete Lund, Pat Somerville 3 ALEC Sponsors HB 4453 Status: Referred to committee (3/16/2011) ALEC Model: Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act Similarities/Analysis: This bill is a step towards privatizing essential government services as it prohibits government entities from competing against private companies. In addition to leading to laying off public workers in Michigan, the bill also creates penalties for government entities that do not outsource traditional public services. Such legislation forces more tax dollars to be spent on funding private corporations at public expense. HB 4453 is similar to “ALEC’s Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act” and two of three of bill’s co-sponsors are active members of ALEC.

ALEC Model: Resolution In Opposition to EPA’s Plan to Regulation Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act Similarities/Analysis: HR 19 ignores dangerous health and environmental risks associated with pollution and greenhouse gases, and instead calls for the EPA to stop regulating greenhouse gases. The resolution also calls on the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. ALEC has also called on the EPA to stop regulating polluters and its corporate sponsors like the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil it its “Resolution In Opposition to EPA’s Plan to Regulation Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.”

REINS ACT (2011)
Michigan Legislation: SR 27 (2011) Sponsors: Michael Kowall - (primary), Jack Brandenburg, Thomas Casperson, Phillip Pavlov, Michael Green, Mike Nofs, Patrick Colbeck, Darwin Booher, John Proos, Roger Kahn, Tonya Schuitmaker, Judith Emmons, James Marleau 4 ALEC Sponsors Status: Adopted (5/31/2011) ALEC Model: Resolution in Support of the Regulations from the Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Similarities/Analysis: SR 27 calls on Congress to pass the REINS Act, legislation that would give Congress the authority to block the enforcement of numerous important federal protections, including clean air and water laws, safeguards for mine workers, rules that prohibit the sale of tobacco to children, and even protection from discrimination. Michigan’s resolution, which is sponsored by four ALEC members, including ALEC’s former Michigan Chairman Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker (R-20), seems to be based on the ALEC model that calls on Congress to take the exact same action: “Resolution in Support of the Regulations from the Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act”